Dara Prasad Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2501 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Cr. Rev. No. 479 of 2012

                     Dara Prasad Mahto                          ...     Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand ...         ...       Opposite Party

                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

06/23.07.2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, is present.

2. Heard Mr. Arup Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments has submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, in as much as, one of the witnesses i.e., P.W.2, who is claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence, has stated that he caught hold of the petitioner, but in fact, the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below and was not apprehended on the spot. He further submits that Witness Nos.1 and 6 were declared hostile and the other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and claimed to be the eye witness were actually not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The learned counsel has also submitted that the manner in which the occurrence had taken place has not been described and the witness have only stated that it was the fault of the truck driver due to which the accident had taken place. He submits that it has also not been mentioned that the truck was moving at a very high speed. Learned counsel has also submitted that it is admitted fact on record that the truck was moving at the appropriate side of the road. He submits that the learned courts below have not appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below

are perverse which call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer by stating that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below which do not call for any interference by this Court and there are 4 eye witnesses to the occurrence including P.W.3, 5, 7 and 8 as recorded in para 11 of the trial court's judgment.

5. Arguments concluded.

6. Post this case on 5th of August, 2021 for judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav